Are you referring to the time that one parent could work in a factory and afford a house + living expenses for a family of four?
Those glory days before the civil rights movement?
When urban population density was too low to justify suburbs?
Before police had qualified immunity for every shooting?
Of course in different times with different laws and circumstances, with different weapons and less availability, and lower urban densities, things were different.
That’s completely irrelevant to the impact of gun regulations on the number of shootings; that is, the proven statistical correlation between gun regulations and fewer mass shootings.
Your supposition that any man willing to commit a mass shooting would be able to get a gun is similarly fanciful and immaterial
All the things I listed were the factors I found relevant to gun violence.
The irrelevance I was referencing to was the anecdotal assumption of a single commenter that because he didn’t personally see as much gun violence when he was child, gun regulations don’t curb gun violence.
Their argument is “there were no seat belts when I grew up, and we had fewer car accident fatalities”, implying that seat belts don’t protect people
That’s a completely irrelevant statement to my point that “seat belts prevent car accident fatalities”; Besides being anecdotal, the statement is unqualified by the lower number of automobiles, the lower number of drivers, lower speed limits, and any number of relevant controlling factors.
It’s nice for that one person that he didn’t see a lot of gun violence as a child, but completely irrelevant to the separate topic of the regulatory effectiveness.
Are you referring to the time that one parent could work in a factory and afford a house + living expenses for a family of four?
Those glory days before the civil rights movement?
When urban population density was too low to justify suburbs?
Before police had qualified immunity for every shooting?
Of course in different times with different laws and circumstances, with different weapons and less availability, and lower urban densities, things were different.
That’s completely irrelevant to the impact of gun regulations on the number of shootings; that is, the proven statistical correlation between gun regulations and fewer mass shootings.
Your supposition that any man willing to commit a mass shooting would be able to get a gun is similarly fanciful and immaterial
I wouldn’t say it’s completely irrelevant to gun violence, but it’s very relevant to violence in general.
What’s the “it” you’re referring to here?
The things you listed as being different and completely irrelevant.
Got it. I think you misunderstood my comment.
All the things I listed were the factors I found relevant to gun violence.
The irrelevance I was referencing to was the anecdotal assumption of a single commenter that because he didn’t personally see as much gun violence when he was child, gun regulations don’t curb gun violence.
Their argument is “there were no seat belts when I grew up, and we had fewer car accident fatalities”, implying that seat belts don’t protect people
That’s a completely irrelevant statement to my point that “seat belts prevent car accident fatalities”; Besides being anecdotal, the statement is unqualified by the lower number of automobiles, the lower number of drivers, lower speed limits, and any number of relevant controlling factors.
It’s nice for that one person that he didn’t see a lot of gun violence as a child, but completely irrelevant to the separate topic of the regulatory effectiveness.